Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Aaron Aadvark
    • By Aaron Aadvark 9th Mar 13, 4:49 PM
    • 230Posts
    • 409Thanks
    Aaron Aadvark
    POPLA Decisions
    • #1
    • 9th Mar 13, 4:49 PM
    POPLA Decisions 9th Mar 13 at 4:49 PM
    MSE Note:

    Hi! Please don't post any private details (yours or other peoples) on the forum for privacy reasons. Thanks!

    MSE Official Insert:

    Read our MoneySaving UK Travel & Transport guides to save more including Fight Private Parking Tickets and Parking Ticket Appeals.

    Back to Aaron Aadvark's original post....

    ----------------------------


    This thread is intended to be a compilation of all published POPLA decisions.

    Please add any decisions you are aware of.

    Please do not post requests for advice on this thread.

    Please start a new thread if you are looking advice.
    Last edited by Former MSE Andrea; 28-10-2016 at 8:29 AM.
Page 37
  • citybluemoon
    Another win v Parking Eye
    Just had a win - albeit a bit strange.
    I did my POPLA appeal helped from this forum and before Xmas received a letter from PE saying "please find enclosed all information sent to POPLA regarding your case reference number above". However - there was nothing else in the envelope!
    A couple of weeks later I received the following from POPLA:



    The Operator has informed us that they have cancelled parking charge notice number xxxxxx/xxxxxx, issued in respect of a vehicle with the registration mark xxxxxx.


    Your appeal has therefore been allowed by order of the Lead Adjudicator.

    You are not liable for the parking charge and, where appropriate, any amounts already paid in respect of this parking charge notice will be refunded by the Operator.


    This was then followed by a letter from PE which said "we can confirm that this charge has been cancelled".


    Any idea from anyone on why this has happened in this way??
  • kirkbyinfurnesslad
    Another gpeol win against pe.

    And he did it all by using the search facility! Amazing what u can do when you look http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=86683&st=0&gopid=910628&#entry 910628
    • Computersaysno
    • By Computersaysno 5th Jan 14, 10:34 AM
    • 1,140 Posts
    • 911 Thanks
    Computersaysno
    100 POPLA @£27 = £2700


    vs


    250,000 tickets issued with a payment rate of 40% @ £70 = £7million


    They must be shaking in their boots....
    There's a very very easy way to get rid of scumco 'fines'...but I'm not allowed to say what it is...because it involves lying to scummy parking companies [which some people say is illegal!!] and that's 'not allowed'.
    • Redx
    • By Redx 5th Jan 14, 11:31 AM
    • 24,967 Posts
    • 31,867 Thanks
    Redx
    yet another NO GPEOL against PE

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4790792

    edit

    looks like this member may have actually won TWO appeals against PE by using Popla , not just the initial one I linked to

    2nd one here http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4786204
    Last edited by Redx; 05-01-2014 at 12:57 PM. Reason: 2 wins not one ?
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • trisontana
    • By trisontana 6th Jan 14, 11:38 AM
    • 9,031 Posts
    • 13,979 Thanks
    trisontana
    This time it's CEL who lose on GPEOL:-

    http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=85443&hl=

    Thanks to everyone who commented on this forum - the appeal was successful:

    *****
    In this present case, the Operator has not justified the amount of the parking charge being a genuine pre-estimate of loss. I have carefully considered the Operator’s submissions and considering everything before me, I do not find that the parking charge represents a genuine pre-estimate of loss suffered.
    Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.
    *****

    Keep up the good work.
    What part of "A whop bop-a-lu a whop bam boo" don't you understand?
    • trisontana
    • By trisontana 7th Jan 14, 5:54 PM
    • 9,031 Posts
    • 13,979 Thanks
    trisontana
    PE loss because of non-authority. (makes a change from GPEOL!) :-

    http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=86742&hl=
    What part of "A whop bop-a-lu a whop bam boo" don't you understand?
    • jdybnsn
    • By jdybnsn 8th Jan 14, 10:55 AM
    • 63 Posts
    • 80 Thanks
    jdybnsn
    Another Winner - Against District Enforement Ltd
    After receiving a strange email from POPLA saying the case had been dropped by District Enforcement in November, swiftly followed by another email from District Enforcement Ltd saying no, it was not !?! ...and since then hearing nothing more from either party I'd assumed that the case has in fact been dropped.
    Imagine my surprise therefore (but also delight !) when I got an email today from POPLA stating we'd won the case. Although disappointly it failed to make any reference to the fact that there were NO signs at all at the entrance of the carpark, the contract DE Ltd provided was out of date and no longer existed according to the other party named on it, and that the DVLA details were obtained out side of the timeframe allowed. Also no reference to my friend's recognised disabilities (Blue Badge Holder), which also includes vision problems.
    Any and all, of which, I feel are far more serious issues than the one quoted below that the appeal was allowed on.

    Still a win is a win I suppose,...... especially as it cost them 2 lots of appeal money as they failed to obtain the driver or owner details the first time and POPLA somewhat weirdly 'deleted' the first appeal ;


    PARKINGON PRIVATELANDAPPEALS


    08 January 2014


    Reference


    Always quote in any communication with POPLA


    Mr x (Appellant)


    -v-


    District Enforcement Limited (Operator)


    The Operator issued parking charge notice number -------- arisingout


    of the presence at the Swine Market, Nantwich, on x May 2013, of a


    vehicle with registration mark xxxxxxx.


    The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.


    The Assessor has considered the evidence of both parties and has


    determined that the appeal be allowed.


    The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.


    The Operator should now cancel the parking charge noticeforthwith.


    08 January 2014


    Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination


    Onx May 2013, a parking charge notice was applied to a vehicle with

    registrationmark xxxxxxx for parking without displaying a valid parking

    permit.

    Itis the Operator’s case is that the terms and conditions for parking in the car

    parkare clearly displayed on numerous signs throughout the site. The signage

    says:“valid permits must be displayed at all times.” The Operator has

    producedphotographic evidence of the vehicle which show that no valid

    parkingpermit was displayed within the vehicle on the date of the parking

    event.

    TheAppellant has made a number of submissions, however, I will only

    elaborateon the one submission that I am allowing this appeal on, namely

    thatthe parking charge amount is punitive and it is not a genuine preestimate

    ofloss.

    TheOperator rejected the Appellant’s representations, as set out in the notice

    ofrejection they sent because, they state that a breach of the car park

    conditionshad occurred by parking without a valid parking permit clearly

    displayed.They say that the £120 full rate charge was set prior to the

    introductionof the new code of practice and therefore falls under the

    transitionalarrangements set out under Appendix F of the Code of Practice

    andthe amount is fully compliant with regulation 19.6 of the new Code of

    Practice.They sate that their charges are not punitive as they are within the

    guidelinesset by the British Parking Association and accepted by the Office

    ofFair Trading and their parking charges occur when the parking event

    occursnot on breach of contract and therefore, they are terms of contract

    andsubject to the Regulation 6(2) (b) of the Unfair Terms in Consumer

    Contractregulations 1999.They have provided a list of judgments to support

    theirappeal.

    Theparking charge in this case is £120. The BPA Code states at Paragraph

    19.5that if the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a

    breachof contract or act of trespass, the charge must be based on the

    genuinepre-estimate of loss suffered. The Code continues that the BPA would

    notexpect this amount to be more than £100 and that if the charge is more

    thanthis then the Operator must be able to justify the amount in advance.

    TheBPA have previously indicated that that they have not found such

    justificationin any case.

    Inote the Operator’s submissions in relation to the amount of the parking

    chargebeing compliant with the BPA Code of Practice and I appreciate

    theirefforts to prove their case nevertheless, in this present case, the Operator

    hasnot justified the amount of parking charge, being in excess of £100. I have

    carefullyconsidered both parties submissions and considering everything

    beforeme, I do not find that the parking charge represents a genuine

    pre-estimateof loss suffered.


    Accordingly,this appeal must be allowed.


    Aurela Qerimi


    Assessor
    Last edited by jdybnsn; 08-01-2014 at 11:16 AM.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 8th Jan 14, 11:11 AM
    • 76,396 Posts
    • 89,706 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    That is a very strange win but well done!

    District Enforcement are one of the unusual ones, like CPS, whose signs do not suggest a breach of contract. In the above decision it says 'They state that their charges are not punitive as they are within the guidelines set by the British Parking Association and accepted by the Office of Fair Trading and their parking charges occur when the parking event occurs not on breach of contract and therefore, they are terms of contract.'

    And yet the Assessor has seen that £120 is outside of the BPA CoP ceiling and decided that means the charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss (which it doesn't have to be because it's a 'contractual term' a fee for parking there!). In fact that matter was 'only' a BPA issue and not something that should win a POPLA appeal (as Richard Reeve confirmed in an email to me, a BPA breach does not in itself mean a POPLA win). Very odd!

    You would have expected the Assessor to find in favour of the appellant on 'no contract' if it was out of date anyway though.

    JUST TO WARN PEOPLE NOT TO RELY ON ''NO GPEOL'' WHEN IT'S DISTRICT ENFORCEMENT OR CONTROLLED PARKING SOLUTIONS. A SPECIFIC APPEAL WOULD NEED TO BE WRITTEN, MAINLY ON CONTRACT OR 'DISGUISED PENALTY/UNFAIR TERMS' IMHO.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • ianyoung82
    Decision:- Allowed

    Assessor:Marina Kapour

    Date: 29 November 2013

    Reported:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4761772

    Successful Grounds: No Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss

    PPC: ParkingEye Ltd.



    PARKING ON PRIVATE LAND APPEALS

    29 November 2013

    always quote in any communication with POPLA

    Me (Appellant)

    -V-

    ParkingEye Ltd (Operator)

    The Operator issued parking charge notice number XXX

    arising out of the presence at Home Bargains, Wrexham, on XX August 2013, of a vehicle with registration mark XXXXXXX.

    The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.

    The Assessor has considered the evidence of both parties and has

    determined that the appeal be allowed

    The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.

    The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith.

    Parking on Private Land Appeals is administered by the Transport and Environment Committee of London Councils

    Calls to Parking on Private Land Appeals may be recorded

    Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

    It is the Operator’s case that on XX August 2013, of a vehicle with registration

    mark XXXXXXX was recorded entering the said car park at 09:49 and exiting

    at 12:12, recording a total stay of 2 hours 23 minutes, in a car park with a

    maximum authorised stay of 2 hours.

    The Operator’s case is that there is clear signage at the site informing

    motorists that the site allows a maximum stay of 2 hours. The operator submits

    that the appellant breached the terms and conditions of the site by

    overstaying the maximum stay by 23 minutes.

    The Appellant’s case is that the amount of the parking charge notice is

    disproportionate and exceeds that potential cost or consequential loss to the

    landowner by the alleged breach along with other representations which I

    am minded to accept have been addressed by the Operator adequately.

    The signage produced in evidence by the operator states that a parking

    charge notice would be issued for “failure to comply”. This wording appears

    to indicate that the parking charge represents damages for a breach of the

    parking contract. Accordingly, the charge must be a genuine pre-estimate

    of loss. The estimate must be based upon loss flowing from a breach of the

    parking terms.

    The operator submits that the amount of the parking charge is legally

    enforceable on the following three grounds;

    1. That there is a strong commercial justification for the charge,

    2. That there is ample case law to suggest that the value of such a

    parking charge is not punitive and,

    3. That the charge is a genuine pre- estimate of loss.

    The operator has cited case law to find that the charge is commercially

    justifiable and that the charge cannot be considered a penalty. The operator

    submits that the private management of car parks is commercially necessary

    for landholders. The operator further submits that landholders have a right to

    commercially manage their private land as they see fit to allow motorists to

    use the land for parking under certain terms and conditions. The operator states that this is commercially necessary as the landholder needs to manage

    their land in order to ensure that their business can run successfully.

    It seems that the courts have accepted a third category of liquidated

    damages, a sum which is commercially justified – in cases where the sum is

    neither a penalty nor is it strictly a genuine pre-estimate of loss – where the

    Operator has substantiated the loss incurred, or the loss that might reasonably

    be incurred, by the breach. However, I do not accept the Operator’s

    submission that the inclusion of costs which in reality amount to the general

    business costs incurred for the provision of their car park management

    services is commercially justified. I am not minded to accept that the charge

    is justified commercially and so must be shown to be a genuine pre-estimate

    of loss in order to be enforceable against the Appellant.

    I find that the whole business model of an operator in respect of a particular

    car park operation cannot in itself amount to commercial justification.

    The operator has cited case law in order to submit that the value of the

    parking charge is reasonable and not punitive. I find that each case is

    different on its facts and it is not possible for me to allow an appeal based on

    these short summaries.

    The operator submits that that the pre-estimate of loss will depend on the

    losses to themselves and the landholder. The operator submits that this will

    vary on the time of the day, the day of the week and even upon the

    weather. The operator submits that the losses incurred by them include, but

    are not restricted to:

    * Erection and maintenance of the signage

    * Installation

    * Monitoring and maintenance of the automatic number plate

    recognition (ANPR) systems

    * Employment of office based administrative staff

    * Membership and other fees required to manage the business

    effectively including those paid to the BPA, DVLA and ICO, general

    costs including stationary, postage etc.

    The Operator has produced a list of costs; however, a substantial proportion

    of these appear to be general operational costs, and not losses consequential to the Appellant’s breach. The aim of damages for breach of

    contract is to put the parties in the position they would have been in had the

    contract been performed. Accordingly, the Operator cannot include in its

    pre-estimate of loss costs which are not in fact contractual losses, but the

    costs of running its business and which would have been incurred irrespective

    of the Appellant’s conduct and not as a result of the Appellant’s breach.

    Considering carefully, all the evidence before me, I find that, the parking

    charge sought is a sum by way of damages. I also find that the damages

    sought on this particular occasion do not amount to a genuine pre- estimate

    of loss or fall within commercial justification.

    Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

    Marina Kapour

    Assessor
    Last edited by ianyoung82; 08-01-2014 at 11:30 AM. Reason: Tidying up :-)
  • Kate1899
    Victory !!!
    Victory !!! Thank you very much for all help with my appeal. Of course Assesor has decided that appeal must be allowed. (NO GPEOL) This are the "Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination" :


    On "DATE" at Robin Hood Airport, the appellant was issued with a
    parking charge notice for breaching the terms and conditions of the parking
    site.

    It is the operator’s case that the appellant stopped her vehicle in a no
    stopping area despite signage erected at the site to prohibit this. There is
    photographic evidence to support that there was adequate signage at the
    site to inform motorists of the parking terms and conditions. There is also
    evidence from the operator’s automatic number plate recognition system
    which shows the appellant’s vehicle stopped in a no stopping area.

    The appellant has made a number of submissions, however, I will only
    elaborate on the one submission that I am allowing this appeal on, namely
    that the parking charge amount is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

    The burden is on the operator to prove that the parking charge is a genuine
    pre-estimate of loss. Although the operator has produced a breakdown of
    costs incurred, these do not substantially amount to a genuine pre-estimate
    of loss. I find that a large proportion of the costs listed by the operator do not
    stem directly from the alleged breach and therefore cannot be included in
    the breakdown of costs provided by the operator to establish a genuine preestimate
    of loss. Therefore I am not satisfied that the operator has discharged
    the burden.

    In consideration of all the evidence before me, I find that the operator has
    failed to prove that the parking charge amount was a genuine pre-estimate
    of loss.


    Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 10th Jan 14, 11:14 PM
    • 76,396 Posts
    • 89,706 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    POPLA win against 'Trev the Clamp's outfit, ANPR Ltd, no GPEOL despite the hilarious and unintelligible drivel ANPR Ltd sent in trying to explain their 'losses':

    http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=86851&st=0&gopid=913005&#entry 913005

    The appellant IPC1963 on pepipoo, also received the usual N Martin “your case is doomed” letter which had the verification code hidden in it and the OP also added:

    'Their evidence contained a schematic of their signage on the car park along with photos showing the exact spots where they say signs were evident would you believe no signs were in the photos! Just like the photos I submitted! Could this be because there were no signs?! Oh and one of the signs highlighted was a National Clamps sign threatening clamping.'

    But the best bit is the losses 'explanation' - do read it!
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 11th Jan 14, 12:27 AM
    • 76,396 Posts
    • 89,706 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    But OMG, we have a loss here, CPM:


    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4811265


    I wrote that POPLA appeal - as the signage was borderline in its wording - and it seems to me that the Assessor has erred. The OP needs to complain to the Chief Adjudicator as he was never sent any 'evidence' before the POPLA decision was made and because of what appears to be a flawed decision that they 'don't need to show GPEOL'.

    What do others think? Any comments please add them to the linked case. We need this one looked at again.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • prjohnsonnn10
    • By prjohnsonnn10 11th Jan 14, 6:16 PM
    • 96 Posts
    • 103 Thanks
    prjohnsonnn10
    Coincidentally I just got a successful appeal thru from POPLA also based on 'signage' . See below. I was expecting the GPEOL to be the winner but they didnt even get that fair in my submission and gave me the decision based on CPP not 'proving' adequatley that the signage was in fact clear.


    10 January 2014
    Reference 1773123003
    always quote in any communication with POPLA
    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Appellant)
    -v-
    CP Plus Limited (Operator)
    The Operator issued parking charge notice number 547131023014
    arising out of the presence at Salisbury Square, on 1 November 2013, of
    a vehicle with registration mark xxxxxx.
    The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.
    The Assessor has considered the evidence of both parties and has
    determined that the appeal be allowed
    The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.
    The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith.
    1773123003 2 10 January 2014
    Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
    It is the Operator’s case that the parking charge notice was issued for parking
    in violation of the displayed terms and conditions. The Operator submits that a
    parking charge is now due in accordance with the clearly displayed terms of
    parking.
    It is the Appellant’s case that he did not see any clear signs on site warning of
    the parking restrictions and that any sign he did then later notice were
    inadequate.
    The Operator is seeking to rely on an agreement between itself and the
    Appellant that the Appellant would abide by the terms of parking or face
    liability for a parking charge. For such a term to be included in the
    agreement, it must be ‘incorporated’ into the agreement. The only relevant
    method of incorporation, in this case, is by notice. This means that the
    Appellant must have been made aware of the term, before the agreement
    was made, in order for it to be deemed part of the agreement. The Appellant
    will be deemed to have been made aware of the term if the Operator had
    taken reasonable steps to bring the term to the Appellant’s attention. The
    usual method by which an Operator takes ‘reasonable steps’ is by displaying
    clear signs around the site advertising the terms of parking.
    As the Appellant submits that the terms of parking were not displayed clearly
    enough, the onus is then on the Operator to demonstrate that the signs at the
    time and location in question were sufficiently clear.
    The Operator has produced picture of two signs on site but I cannot tell the
    location of these signs. The Operator has also produced a site map showing
    where signs are located. I cannot find on the balance of probabilities, where
    the Appellant submits there was no entrance sign at the material time, that
    the appellant would have seen signs if parked near the front half of the car
    park.
    Taking together all of the evidence before me, I must find that the Operator
    has failed to produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it had taken
    reasonable steps to bring the terms of parking to the attention of the
    Appellant.
    Accordingly, I must allow the appeal.
    Marina Kapour
    Assessor
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 11th Jan 14, 10:33 PM
    • 76,396 Posts
    • 89,706 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Thanks for that one - it's a useful one to quote about 'no entrance signage' and in fact I have already just used it for 'lesnmandy' who got the refused POPLA appeal I posted before yours here. But they are asking for a review by complaining to the Lead Adjudicator, since they never got the PPC's evidence and the Assessor made errors I am certain. One of the appeal points the Assessor in their case hasn't covered properly is 'no entrance signage'.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • seadreaming
    • By seadreaming 12th Jan 14, 6:09 PM
    • 26 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    seadreaming
    another appeal won
    Thank-you again to the help I received from the forum.
    SD


    Reasons for the Assessor’sDetermination

    On XMay 201 3, a parkingcharge notice was applied to a vehicle with registration mark XXXXXXfor parking for longer than the stay authorised.

    It is the Operator’s caseis that the car park is “2Hour Maximum Free Stay” as clearly stated on the signage.The Operator says that the terms and conditions are clearly displayedon numerous signs placed at the entrance, exit and throughout thesite. The Operator says that the Appellant’s vehicle was observed parked for 11minutes longer than the permitted stay. They have produced copies ofthe parking charge notice and the signage.

    Photographs of the vehicletaken on the day of the alleged improper parking have also been provided bythe Operator.

    It is the Appellant’s casethat the vehicle was not improperly parked and she is not liable for theparking charge. The Appellant made various submissions but I will only consider theissue of the charge being not genuine pre-estimate of loss.
    The Operator rejected the Appellant’srepresentations, as set out in the notice of rejection they sent because,they state that a breach of the car park conditions had occurred,by parking for longer than the permitted stay. The Operator states that thecharge is fair and reasonable and is in line with the British parking Associationguidelines and at such, it is a genuine pre- estimate
    of loss.

    The Operator does respondto the Appellant’s representation in relation to the issue of the genuine pre-estimateof loss. Nevertheless, I find that as the onus is on the Operator to addressthe points raised by the Appellant and to support the enforcement of theparking charge notice, the Operator has insufficiently addressed this point intheir submissions. I find that on this occasion, the Operator has failed to dischargethe burden of proof.

    Accordingly, this appealmust be allowed.


    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 12th Jan 14, 6:19 PM
    • 76,396 Posts
    • 89,706 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Good old ParkingEye, eh seadreaming?! The operator that keeps on giving when faced with any appeal worded to contend 'no GPEOL'!
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • MrsG1980
    VCS - Liverpool John Lennon Airport winning popla appeal
    Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
    The Operator issued parking charge notice number xxxxxxxx arising out of the presence at John Lennon airport, on 23 September 2013, of a vehicle with registration mark xxxxxxx for stopping on a roadway where stopping is prohibited.
    It is the Operator’s case that the Appellant’s vehicle stopped on a roadway where stopping is prohibited and this was a breach of the terms and conditions of the site as set out on signage at the site.
    The Appellant has made a number of submissions, however, I will only elaborate on the one submission that I am allowing this appeal on, namely that the parking charge amount is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
    The signage produced by the Operator states that a failure to comply with the terms and conditions will lead to a charge of £100 being issued. This wording seems to indicate that the charge represents damages for a breach of the parking contract and therefore the charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
    As the Appellant has raised the issue of the charge not being a genuine pre-estimate of loss, the onus is on the Operator to prove that it is. The Operator has produced a breakdown of costs that they incur in managing the car park, however, this is a general list of operational costs and does not address the loss that was caused by the Appellant’s breach of the terms and conditions of parking.
    I have looked at all of the evidence and have decided to allow this appeal on the basis that the Operator has failed to prove that the parking charge amount was a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
    Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.
    Nozir Uddin
    Assessor
    • trisontana
    • By trisontana 13th Jan 14, 5:55 PM
    • 9,031 Posts
    • 13,979 Thanks
    trisontana
    Another GPEOL loss for PE. This time at a motorway service area:-

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4811452
    What part of "A whop bop-a-lu a whop bam boo" don't you understand?
  • MrMuttley
    ParkingEye Beaumont Leys shopping center

    This one was actually broken down at the time. Rather than fight exclusively on a broken down vehicle I decided to stick with the tried and true no GPEOL. I had hoped that they would rule on the breakdown rather than GPEOL just to give us all a change from the usual rulings. :-)

    Incidently I made an offer to them of £10 as I was about 2 hours over the maximum allowed time to settle the case in full before going to POPLA . They declined that offer even though I said I would fight on no GPEOL as well.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    On 24 September 2013, a parking charge notice was issued to a vehicle with
    registration mark XXXXXXX for parking for longer than the four hours permitted.
    The Operator’s case is that the site is “4 Hour Free Stay Car Park” as clearly
    stated on the signage. The Operator says that the terms and conditions are
    clearly displayed on numerous signs placed at the entrance, exit and
    throughout the site. The Operator says that the Appellant’s vehicle was
    parked for 2 hours 17 minutes longer than the permitted stay. They have
    produced copies of the parking charge notice and the signage. Photographs
    of the vehicle taken on the date of the parking event have also been
    enclosed by the Operator.

    The Appellant made various submissions but I will only consider the point of
    the excessive charge. The Appellant says that the parking charge is
    disproportionate and it is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

    The Operator rejected the Appellant’s representations, as set out in the
    correspondence they sent because they state that a breach of the car park
    conditions had occurred by parking for longer than the stay authorised. They
    state that they believe that their charges are fair and reasonable and they
    have provided a list of costs they incur in issuing and enforcing the parking
    charge which include among other costs but it is not restricted to costs to BPA
    membership, DVLA, loss of revenue, national insurance and etc.

    Although, the Operator responds to the points raised by the Appellant, I find
    that the Operator in this case refers to general principles and to other cases
    but does not appear to specify the actual heads of loss. I note that some
    heads submitted in this present case may fall within a genuine pre-estimate of
    loss, nevertheless, I find that a substantial proportion of them do not. Equally
    for the reasons, set out above, a list of all their costs in the case cannot
    amount to commercial justification. In short, the damages sought on this
    particular occasion do not substantially amount to a genuine pre-estimate of
    loss or fall within commercial justification.

    Accordingly, the appeal must be allowed.

    Aurela Qerimi
    Assessor.
    • trisontana
    • By trisontana 15th Jan 14, 9:50 PM
    • 9,031 Posts
    • 13,979 Thanks
    trisontana
    Another PE GPEOL loss, with POPLA seemingly in a bit of a mess:-

    http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=81954&st=40&start=40

    Well, that only took four and a half months from the appeal date and seven months from the alleged offence.

    POPLA appeal FINALLY allowed.

    I got the cancellation letter from PE today, checked my emails and found the POPLA decision; as predicted, they allowed on the pre estimate of loss.

    I can post any documents that might be helpful. Please let me know if anyone would like me to. In the interim I have also been very active with notes on cars and directing people to this website. PePiPoo is (and MSE and Parking Prankster!), fabulous.

    Thank you.


    Ooh... P.S. The reason it took so long? I appealed in August and waited until December. I then phoned POPLA because they sent me an email about an adjournment. They hung up on me. This may have been an accident of course. I phoned back and they said my case had been adjourned because I had not sent in my evidence and could I send it again. I assured them I had sent it by recorded delivery, I was put on hold and told they had lost and then found my evidence; it had been filed in the wrong file. The case could now go ahead. I waited for the Christmas period to pass (chin chin), and then, in January, contacted POPLA again to please deal with my appeal. A test of patience but all is well.
    Last edited by trisontana; 16-01-2014 at 7:22 AM.
    What part of "A whop bop-a-lu a whop bam boo" don't you understand?
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

495Posts Today

4,860Users online

Martin's Twitter